Transparency, independence and in depth with regard to safety oriented road accident investigation

In the framework of work package 4 of the SafetyNet project, a European Commission supported research programme, the meaning of the concept of “independence”, its usefulness and applicability to road safety oriented accident investigation processes and their results was reflected upon. According to the project proposal, the work package was to draft good practice recommendations, applicable to all phases of data gathering and input, database management, data use and dissemination, with the aim of ensuring the quality of public European road accident data. It was to develop procedures for evaluating the “independence” of public European road accident databases and to draft recommendations for guaranteeing the “independence” of any future public European road accident database. During the first months of the project, the concept of independence was clearly defined. It applies to the investigation body. It has structural, financial and functional aspects. Some independent accident investigation bodies exist in aviation, maritime and rail transport sectors. For the investigation of road traffic accidents such independent bodies are rare. In the case of major road accidents, their investigation is usually conducted by multimodal accident investigation boards. In the case of more routine road accidents, there is no clear pattern in those countries, whose accident investigation practices were assessed. The status of the investigations and that of the persons conducting the investigations differs from one country to another. When it comes to actual investigation practices, the concept of independence was found to be insufficient or even inappropriate. Progressively it became obvious that the independence of the investigation body and that of the investigation process do not resolve the question of the quality of investigations nor that of the quality of any subsequent data. The quality of the investigation work relies certainly on the impartiality of the investigating body, permitted by its independence, but also on the qualifications and experience of the investigators, as well as the investigation methods used during the actual investigation processes. Data quality itself depends on what questions are to be answered and how adequate the available data is for answering. It is not the knowledge about independence of the investigating body, but the availability of information on all relevant aspects of data acquisition and management processes that allow its quality to be assessed. It is the concept of transparency that corresponds to these aspects of the accident investigation data production processes. Further consideration was given to the use of some key notions, such as “in-depth data” or “in-depth investigation”, which the road safety community generally takes for granted. Their relative fuzziness and their simultaneous use by professionals from different areas of expertise have caused misunderstandings in our discussions with experts who are not primarily oriented towards road safety. This has spurred an effort to clarify the vocabulary in use. This paper examines the work package 4 work with a slight sociological overtone. The work package 4 deliverables can be found at the European Road Safety Observatory web site at http://www.erso.eu/safetynet/content/wp_4_independent_accident_investigation.htm

The New European Road Safety Observatory – SafetyNet

In 2004 there were over 43,000 people who were killed on the roads of the 25 member states of the European Union (EU), additionally around 3.3 million people were injured1. The costs to society exceeded €180 billion which is around twice the annual budget of the European Commission and 2% of EU GDP. In 2001 the European Commission adopted a target of reducing fatalities by 50% within a decade and identified several areas where it could make a direct contribution within the constraints of subsidiarity. The target was reaffirmed in 2003 in the Road Safety Action Programme that provided further detail about actions it planned to introduce. A key element in the Programme concerned the development of a new European Road Safety Observatory to gather data and knowledge to inform future safety policies. The development of the Observatory was to be undertaken by the Sixth Framework funded project “SafetyNet”. This paper describes the structure of the Observatory and the progress in developing new EU-wide accident data information within SafetyNet

Recommendations for establishing Pan European transparent and independent road accident investigations

A set of recommendations for pan-European transparent and independent road accident investigations has been developed by the SafetyNet project. The aim of these recommendations is to pave the way for future EU scale accident investigation activities by setting out the necessary steps for establishing safety oriented road accident investigations in Member States. This can be seen as the start of the process for establishing road accident investigations throughout Europe which operate according to a common methodology. The recommendations propose a European Safety Oriented Road Accident Investigation Programme which sets out the procedures that need to be put in place to investigate a sample of every day road accidents. They address four sets of issues; institutional addressing the characteristics of the programme; operational describing the conditions under which data is collected; data storage and protection; and reports, countermeasures and the dissemination of data

Proposing a framework for pan European transparent and independent road accident investigation

Unlike the rail, civil aviation and maritime transport modes, there is currently no standard process for investigating road accidents within Europe. There is, therefore, a wide range of road accident investigation procedures and protocols in place across Europe. However, as countries work towards meeting both their own road safety targets and those set by the European Commission, it may be that existing investigation practices are no longer suited to facilitating the decision making processes of road safety policymakers or practitioners. SafetyNet is a European Commission supported project, which is building a European Road Safety Observatory to facilitate the formulation of road safety policy in the European Union. Work package 4 of SafetyNet is developing recommendations for a Transparent and Independent pan-European approach to road accident investigation. These recommendations propose the establishment of an independent body for undertaking transparent and independent accident investigations where necessary, or the implementation of these investigations in existing national safety orientated accident investigation activities, in each of the EU Member States. This body would gather and manage accident investigation data and use this data to further progress road safety within the EU. To define the framework in which this body might operate, ‘Best practice’ from existing investigative organisations across Europe was examined in order to produce a set of draft recommendations which focused on four categories of issues: 1. Institutional, referring to the structure and functioning of the body responsible for road safety investigations; 2. Operational, detailing how the body carries out investigations; 3. Data, addressing issues surrounding the storage, retrieval and analysis of data generated by investigations; and 4. Development of Countermeasures, dealing with how investigation conclusions should be presented, used and disseminated. A consultation exercise was then undertaken in order to gather the expert opinion of European road safety stakeholders and to further develop the recommended framework. This highlighted a number of key questions about the Draft Recommendations including: • Is the proposed level of transparency and independence appropriate for road accident investigations? • Is one type of investigative activity appropriate for all types of accidents ranging from the most severe or ‘major’ accidents to the large number of more minor accidents that occur everyday? The major conclusion was that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not appropriate for the investigation of road accidents and therefore multiple sets of recommendations are required. This paper discusses how the four categories of recommendations combine to form a framework where the data gathered during road accident investigations can be used to develop road accident countermeasures which will assist in casualty reduction throughout Europe

Stakeholder's contribution. Deliverable 1.3 of the EC FP7 Project DaCoTA

The aim of DaCoTA’s Work Package 1 is to shed light on road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe and to explore how these can be better supported by data and knowledge. This was done by assessing demands and views of stakeholders as well as by building a good practice model for road safety management investigation. Future versions of the European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO, www.erso.eu) are envisaged to be built on the findings of this project. This report describes the methodology and presents the first aggregated results of an on-line stakeholder consultation carried out in Task 1.3. The survey was successfully carried out among more than 3000 road safety stakeholders in Europe and beyond

Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D4.1 Bibliographical analysis

The notion of independence, as commonly used, is somewhat fuzzy. Some public bodies, such as the Federal Reserve System in the United States or the European Central Bank are independent. The Court of Justice of European Communities is also an independent and autonomous institution. These institutions have characteristics consistent with the formal definition of the notion of independence. They are independent, in the limits of their missions, because they are not subject to outside control. They are separate and do not take instructions from other public bodies. They are financially autonomous and the members of these institutions themselves are qualified and independent. In relation to the field of research, the meaning of independence does not seem excessively problematic. As for the central banks or the judicial institution, a certain amount of independence –independence of the entity, that of the researchers and of the research itself– would be vital for the impartiality and the quality of the research process and its results. Therefore, an independent accident investigation body should not be subject to outside control in the pursuit of its mission. It should be separate from other bodies, public or private, having financial or other interests in the results of its investigations. It should not take instructions from other bodies or outside personalities. It should have adequate control over the use of its investigation results. Finally, it should be financially autonomous and its members be qualified and independent themselves. In the United States, the contrast between National Transportation Safety Board and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is most interesting. While NTSB has a solid reputation as an investigation body, wearing several hats puts NHTSA in a somewhat uncomfortable position. In that particular case, the main problem seems to arise from the ties it has to the manufacturers as the authority responsible for the safety regulations and for the safety investigation. In Europe there are several Directives or Regulations, as well as a White Paper, a Communication from the Commission and a Work Programme, that concern transport safety. In the field of civil aviation, there are two specific European Directives: 1. Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents; and 2. Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation The purpose of a safety (or accident) investigation, the authorised methods and practices, as well as the definitions have been set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) since the 1944 Chicago Convention. Accident investigations in Europe and worldwide rely on the Chicago Convention Annex Bibliographical Analysis Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy sn_inrets_wp4_d4.1_14/11/2005_final Page 5 13. The first version of the Annex 13 was drafted in 1951; the current version (9th) was agreed upon in 2001. The European Directives’ focus is on the structural, financial and functional independence of the investigating body. National laws adapting the international and European requirements concerning the independence of the safety investigation and of the investigation body exist in all studied Member States, namely in Germany, France, Italy, Finland and United Kingdom. All these Member States have an independent civil aviation accident investigation body. In the field of maritime transport, there is one general European Directive: 1. Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services The purpose of a safety (or accident) investigation, the methods and practices, as well as the definitions have been set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). The accident investigation in Europe and worldwide tends to respect the IMO Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents, agreed upon by the Resolution A849/20 from 1997. The European Directive structures the maritime transport in a quite general manner. It is not specific to accident investigation and does not require the Member States to establish an independent investigation body. However, the Directive’s aim is to ensure the harmonised enforcement of some principles agreed upon within the IMO, particularly the IMO Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents. The IMO Code states that ideally an investigation on a marine casualty should be separate from, and independent of, any other form of investigation. Therefore, while the Member States have no formal obligation to establish an independent investigation body for the investigation of marine casualties, this remains an objective. National laws adapting the international and European recommendations concerning the independence of the safety investigation and of the investigation body exist in Germany, France, Finland and United Kingdom. In the field of rail transport, there are three general Directives: 1. Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways amended by the 2. Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001; and 3. Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on safety on the Community's railways The purpose of a safety (or accident) investigation, the methods and practices as well as the definitions are set by the 2004 Directive. It requires the Member States to establish an independent accident investigation body. The European Directives’ structure the rail transport in a quite general manner. The International Union of Railways (UIC) uses the European definitions for its Bibliographical Analysis Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy sn_inrets_wp4_d4.1_14/11/2005_final Page 6 Safety Data Base project. National laws adapting the European requirements concerning the independence of the safety investigation and of the investigation body exist or will shortly be acted in all studied Member States. In the field of road transport, there are no European Directives or Regulations nor any other international legal framework. National laws on safety (or accident) investigation and the investigation body exist in France and in Finland. Italy, Germany and United Kingdom have opted for separate investigation bodies for different transport modes. France has opted for separate investigation bodies for civil aviation and maritime, while all the land transports are investigated by one body. Finland has an investigation body for civil aviation and all major accidents, whether they involve a mode of transport or not, and another system for investigating road and cross-country accidents. It is clear that road accident investigations differ from the accident investigation in other transport modes. Only two of the Member States, whose accident investigation practices have been assessed, have a legal national framework applicable to road accident safety investigation. In France, the decision on opening a safety investigation on a road accident is taken by the Minister of Transport. In 2004, only three accidents involving road traffic vehicles were investigated. In Finland, all fatal road accidents and some non-fatal road accidents are investigated. On average, some 500 road accidents, of which 370 fatal, are investigated annually. The bulk of the research in road safety in all involved Member States, with the exception of Finland, is therefore made by research bodies that do not have the legal status of a body responsible for conducting safety (or accident) investigations

Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D4.4 Workshop report

SafetyNet Work Package 4 (WP4) organised a workshop in Brussels March, 27th 2007. The aim of this workshop was to consult a variety of road safety stakeholders on the appropriateness and necessity of WP4 Draft Recommendations (SafetyNet 2006b), applicable to and aiming to assure the independence and transparency of road accident investigations and the subsequent investigation data. The workshop was attended by 60 persons including WP4 partners. 47 attendees were not involved in WP4 and out of these 40 filled the workshop questionnaire. The workshop attendees and questionnaire respondents represented 15 different EU Member States and three other nationalities. In terms of professional background, researchers and safety investigators were best represented, but people from policy making, manufacturing and insurance industries and judiciary sector were also present. The workshop was divided into five sessions. The first introduced the SafetyNet project, WP4 and the work performed during the first three years of the project. Each of the four following sessions presented one cluster of the WP4 Draft Recommendations. External speakers were also invited to present their views on accident investigation. Each session was concluded by a general discussion and an invitation to fill in the relevant parts of the questionnaire. The external presentations, discussions, questionnaire responses and all other comments were constructive. The workshop allowed a large amount of good quality feedback to be gathered. Some of the feedback confirmed what had already been discovered in the six month consultation period that followed the submission of WP4 Deliverable D4.3 Draft Recommendations. Other feedback, from sectors less familiar to WP4 partners, was new. In any case, all feedback will be useful in preparing the finalised WP4 Recommendations for transparent and independent accident investigation. While the majority of our Draft Recommendations were judged appropriate and necessary by at least 65% of the respondents (26 questionnaire respondents out of 40), three individual recommendations consistently received a lower approval rate varying from 58% to 63% (23 to 25 respondents). In some cases the formulation of an individual draft recommendation was unclear, leaving too much room for interpretation. In these cases WP4 must reformulate the recommendation and then seek the opinion of stakeholders. In other cases, individual recommendations were judged appropriate and necessary for the investigation of certain types of accidents and not appropriate or necessary for the investigation of certain other types of accidents. In these cases WP4 must clearly state the type of accident and the type of accident investigation, an individual recommendation applies to. Finally, the most widely approved Draft Recommendations will certainly be included among the finalised recommendations, while the most problematic Draft Recommendations might simply not be included. In any case, the feedback gathered during the consultation period, at the workshop and the further feedback that will be gathered between June 2007 and April 2008, will help to considerably enhance the WP4 Recommendations

Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable 4.5 Recommendations for transparent and independent road accident investigation

These Recommendations for Transparent and Independent Road Accident Investigation present the conclusions of four years of combined efforts of more than 20 persons, involved in road safety research, representing seven different organisations from as many European Union Member States. They establish the requirements for conducting and promote the creation of transparent and independent road accident investigations in all Member States according to a common European investigation methodology. Such investigations would address the need to have detailed, public, transparent and independent road accident data available at European level. The issues related to independence and transparency have been considered in detail in previous SafetyNet work package 4 Deliverables (SafetyNet, 2005 and 2006a). A set of Draft Recommendations addressing the investigation of major as well as a sample of routine accidents was prepared (SafetyNet, 2006b). A consultation period culminating with a Workshop was organised for gathering feedback on those Draft Recommendations (SafetyNet, 2007). Finally, the Draft Recommendations were thoroughly reconsidered in light of that feedback and used to prepare this 'finalised’ set of Recommendations, whose primary focus is on the investigation of a sample of routine accidents

Recommendations for establishing Pan European Transparent and Independent Road Accident Investigations

A set of recommendations for pan-European transparent and independent road accident investigations has been developed bythe SafetyNet project. The aim of these recommendations is to pave the way for future EU scale accident investigationactivities by setting out the necessary steps for establishing safety oriented road accident investigations in Member States.This can be seen as the start of the process for establishing road accident investigations throughout Europe which operateaccording to a common methodology.The recommendations propose a European Safety Oriented Road Accident Investigation Programme which sets out theprocedures that need to be put in place to investigate a sample of every day road accidents. They address four sets of issues;institutional addressing the characteristics of the programme; operational describing the conditions under which data iscollected; data storage and protection; and reports, countermeasures and the dissemination of data

Needs for evidence-based road safety decision making in Europe

The objective of this research is the assessment of current needs for evidence-based road safety decision making in Europe, through the consultation of a panel of road safety experts. The members of this Experts Panel have extensive knowledge of road safety management processes and needs in their country, being either directly involved in decision making, or working closely with decision makers. Two consultation methods were implemented: semi-directive interviews and written contributions. The synthesis of the results was carried out by means of a predefined matrix, in which the road safety management tasks were separated into their components, and were then cross-tabulated with distinct categories of needs. The results provide valuable information on the current and future needs for evidence-based road safety management in Europe. A number of key issues were brought forward with wide consensus among Experts, such as the need to make the consideration of scientific evidence in road safety decisions compulsory in all countries. The establishment of appropriate procedures was emphasized, including institutional arrangements for road safety management, with the necessary links and interactive procedures for local needs. The results also include useful recommendations, for the setting of targets, the use of cost-benefit analyses, the analysis of combined effects of measures, the collection of data on measures implementation, the collection of exposure and behavioural data, the estimation of injury under-reporting and the standardization of analysis methods